Papers › Revisiting Oxford and Paris: Large-Scale Image Retrieval Benchmarking
Revisiting Oxford and Paris: Large-Scale Image Retrieval Benchmarking
Filip Radenović, Ahmet Iscen, Giorgos Tolias, Yannis Avrithis, Ondřej Chum
In this paper we address issues with image retrieval benchmarking on standard and popular Oxford 5k and Paris 6k datasets. In particular, annotation errors, the size of the dataset, and the level of challenge are addressed: new annotation for both datasets is created with an extra attention to the reliability of the ground truth. Three new protocols of varying difficulty are introduced. The protocols allow fair comparison between different methods, including those using a dataset pre-processing stage. For each dataset, 15 new challenging queries are introduced. Finally, a new set of 1M hard, semi-automatically cleaned distractors is selected. An extensive comparison of the state-of-the-art methods is performed on the new benchmark. Different types of methods are evaluated, ranging from local-feature-based to modern CNN based methods. The best results are achieved by taking the best of the two worlds. Most importantly, image retrieval appears far from being solved.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Datasets
Introduced by this paper, per the archive.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
| Task | Dataset | Model | Metric | Value | Rank at snapshot | Leaderboard | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image Retrieval | ROxford (Hard) | HesAff–rSIFT–HQE+SP | mAP | 49.7 | #10 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | ROxford (Hard) | HesAff–rSIFT–HQE | mAP | 41.3 | #12 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | ROxford (Hard) | HesAff–rSIFT–ASMK*+SP | mAP | 36.7 | #14 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | ROxford (Hard) | HesAff–rSIFT–ASMK* | mAP | 36.4 | #15 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | ROxford (Hard) | HesAff–rSIFT–SMK*+SP | mAP | 35.8 | #16 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | ROxford (Hard) | HesAff–rSIFT–SMK* | mAP | 35.4 | #17 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | ROxford (Hard) | HesAff–rSIFT–VLAD | mAP | 13.2 | #22 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | ROxford (Medium) | HesAff–rSIFT–HQE+SP | mAP | 71.3 | #9 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | ROxford (Medium) | HesAff–rSIFT–HQE | mAP | 66.3 | #11 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | ROxford (Medium) | HesAff–rSIFT–ASMK*+SP | mAP | 60.6 | #15 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | ROxford (Medium) | HesAff–rSIFT–ASMK* | mAP | 60.4 | #16 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | ROxford (Medium) | HesAff–rSIFT–SMK*+SP | mAP | 59.8 | #17 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | ROxford (Medium) | HesAff–rSIFT–SMK* | mAP | 59.4 | #18 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | ROxford (Medium) | HesAff–rSIFT–VLAD | mAP | 33.9 | #23 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | ROxford Medium without fine-tuning | HesAff–rSIFT–VLAD | Average mAP | 33.9 | #1 of 1 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | RParis (Hard) | HesAff–rSIFT–HQE+SP | mAP | 45.1 | #15 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | RParis (Hard) | HesAff–rSIFT–HQE | mAP | 44.7 | #17 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | RParis (Hard) | HesAff–rSIFT–ASMK*+SP | mAP | 35.0 | #19 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | RParis (Hard) | HesAff–rSIFT–ASMK* | mAP | 34.5 | #20 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | RParis (Hard) | HesAff–rSIFT–SMK*+SP | mAP | 31.3 | #21 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | RParis (Hard) | HesAff–rSIFT–SMK* | mAP | 31.2 | #22 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | RParis (Hard) | HesAff–rSIFT–VLAD | mAP | 17.5 | #23 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | RParis (Medium) | HesAff–rSIFT–HQE+SP | mAP | 70.2 | #15 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | RParis (Medium) | HesAff–rSIFT–HQE | mAP | 68.9 | #17 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | RParis (Medium) | HesAff–rSIFT–ASMK*+SP | mAP | 61.4 | #19 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | RParis (Medium) | HesAff–rSIFT–ASMK* | mAP | 61.2 | #20 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | RParis (Medium) | HesAff–rSIFT–SMK*+SP | mAP | 59.2 | #21 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | RParis (Medium) | HesAff–rSIFT–SMK* | mAP | 59.0 | #22 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Retrieval | RParis (Medium) | HesAff–rSIFT–VLAD | mAP | 43.6 | #23 of 23 | Archive leaderboard | report |
Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections